- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8932 WP No. 46035 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 46035 OF 2016 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: SHRI PURUSHOTHAMA REDDY S/O LATE DORESWAMY REDDY AGED 64 YEARS R/A NO.19, ACES LAYOUT, ACHALASEVASHRAMA ROAD 6TH CROSS SANJAY NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 094 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.Y. SHIVALLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE TAHASILDAR BENGALURU NORTH TALUK KG ROAD BENGALURU - 560 009 2. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE CORPORATION CIRCLE BENGALURU - 560 002 REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, SUB-DIVISION, DASARAHALLI REGION BBMP, HMT LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560 073 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BOPANNA BELLIAPPA, AGA FOR R1 SRI H. DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8932 WP No. 46035 of 2016 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE FINAL JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED 21.09.2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN REVENUE APPEAL NO.262/2011 (ANENXURE-Q) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE PETITIONER, DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY A SUM OF R.2,66,91,000/- TO THE PETITIONER, QUASH AND SETTING ASIDE THE NOTICE DATED 16.6.2016 (ANNEXURE-Y) ISSUED BY THE R-2 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. This petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for brevity, referred to as “the Tribunal”). The Tribunal vide its order dated 21.09.2015 has recorded as follows: “D ¥ÀæPÁgÀ PÉÆÃmïð PÀ«ÄõÀ£ÀgÁV ¨sÀÆ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, £ÀUÀgÀ ªÀiÁ¥À£À vÀAqÀ-1, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆÃmïð PÀ«ÄõÀ£ÀgÁV £ÉêÀÄPÀ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVvÀÄÛ. D ¥ÀæPÁgÀ CªÀgÀÄ ¢:09-09- 2015 gÀAzÀÄ PÉÆÃmïð PÀ«ÄõÀ£Àgï ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ, G¨sÀAiÀÄ ¥ÀPÀëUÁgÀjUÉ ¸ÀzÀj PÀ«ÄõÀ£Àgï ªÀgÀ¢UÉ vÀPÀgÁgÀÄ zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀPÉÌ PÁ¯ÁªÀPÁ±À PÉÆqÀ¯ÁVvÀÄÛ. DzÀgÉ, G¨sÀAiÀÄ - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8932 WP No. 46035 of 2016 ¥ÀPÀëUÁgÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀ ªÀQîgÀÄ PÀ«ÄõÀ£Àgï ªÀgÀ¢UÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà vÀPÀgÁgÀÄ E®èªÉAzÀÄ ¤ªÉÃzÀ£É ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ, G¨sÀAiÀÄ ¥ÀPÀëUÁgÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀ ªÀQîjAzÀ ªÁzÀ PÉýzɪÀÅ.” 2. It is the case of the petitioner that no submission was made before the Tribunal that the petitioner had no objection for the Commissioner’s report. In fact, he points out that even as per the order sheet which is produced along with the memo, the matter was posted on several dates for awaiting the Commissioner’s report and the report was filed only on 09.09.2015, on which day, the Tribunal adjourned the matter to enable filing of objections to the following day i.e., on 10.09.2015 and on 10.09.2015, the matter was adjourned to 11.09.2015 and thereafter, to 14.09.2015 and since there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner on 14.09.2015, the matter was adjourned to 15.09.2015 and ultimately, it was stated in the order sheet that it - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8932 WP No. 46035 of 2016 heard both sides and the matter was reserved for judgment. 3. He, therefore, submits that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to file his objections and at any rate, the petitioner had not indicated to the Tribunal that he had no objections to the Commissioner’s report. 4. In my view, since the order sheet indicates that the matter was adjourned from 10.11.2015 to 15.11.2015 and on 15.11.2015, it was reserved for judgment, it is obvious that the petitioner had not been given adequate opportunity to file his objections to the Commissioner’s report. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal with a direction to the Tribunal to provide the petitioner an opportunity to file his objections to the Commissioner’s report and thereafter consider the same and pass appropriate orders. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8932 WP No. 46035 of 2016 5. Since both the parties are represented by their learned counsel before this Court, they are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 19.03.2025 without expecting any further notice. 6. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66